From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The disputed areas of the region of Kashmir. India claims the
entire erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir based on an instrument of accession signed in 1947.
Pakistan claims all areas of the erstwhile state except for those
claimed by China. China claims the Shaksam Valley and
Aksai Chin.

India's official position is that Kashmir is an integral part of
India. Pakistan's official position is that Kashmir is a disputed
territory whose final status must be determined by the people of
Kashmir. Certain Kashmiri independence groups believe that Kashmir
should be independent of both India and Pakistan.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir: in 1947, 1965, and 1999.
India and China have clashed once, in 1962 over Aksai Chin as well as the
northeastern Indian state of Arunachal
Pradesh. India and Pakistan have also been involved in several
skirmishes
over Siachen Glacier. Since after 1987 disputed rigged State
elections resulted in some of the 'states legislative assembly'
'formed militant wings' later on after the election forming and
creating the catalyst for the insurgency [25],[26] ,[27]; the
Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir has been in stife
from the confrontation between the Indian Armed Forces ,militants and
separatists .Furthermore India alleges these militants are
supported by Pakistan .This turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir has
resulted in thousands of deaths.[1],however
the insurgency over the past two decades has died down said by the
Indian government[2][3]
.On the other hand there has been a 'purely indigenous, purely
Kashmiri' 'Ghandi style' peaceful protest movement in Indian
Administered Kashmir since 1989. The movement was created for the
same reason as the insurgency ;the disputed rigged elections
in 1987 ,Kashmir dispute and grievances with the Indian government
specifically the Indian Military [2][3].

Timeline

Partition
and dispute

A map of undivided India showing Kashmir and Jammu princely
state.

Before Independence from British in 1947 from 1820, Kashmir was
governed by the Maharaja of
Kashmir who was Hindu although the majority of the population
were Muslim, except the Jammu region. On partition Pakistan
expected Kashmir to be annexed to it.

In 1947, British rule in India ended with the creation of two
new nations: the Union of India and the Dominion
of Pakistan while British suzerainty over the 562 Indian princely states
ended. According to the Indian Independence Act
1947, "the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all
treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this
Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States",[4] so the
states were left to choose whether to join India or Pakistan or to
remain independent. Jammu and Kashmir had a predominantly
Muslim population but a Hindu ruler and was the largest of the
princely states. Its ruler was MaharajaHari Singh.

In October 1947, Pakistani tribals from Dir entered Kashmir intending to liberate
it from Dogra rule. Unable to withstand the invasion, the Maharaja
signed The Instrument of
Accession that was accepted by the Government
of India on October 27, 1947.[5]

Indo-Pakistani War of
1947

The irregular Pakistani tribals made
rapid advances into Kashmir
(Baramulla sector) after
the rumours that the Maharaja was going to decide for the union
with India. Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir asked the Government
of India to intervene. However, the Government
of India pointed out that India and Pakistan had signed an
agreement of non-intervention (maintenance of the status quo) in Jammu and
Kashmir; and although tribal fighters from Pakistan had entered
Jammu and Kashmir, there was, until then, no iron-clad legal
evidence to unequivocally prove that the Government of Pakistan was
officially involved. It would have been illegal for India to
unilaterally intervene (in an open, official capacity) unless Jammu
and Kashmir officially joined the Union of India, at which point it would be
possible to send in its forces and occupy the remaining parts.

The Maharaja desperately needed the Indian military's
help when the Pathan tribals reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Before their
arrival into Srinagar,
India argues that Maharaja Hari Singh completed negotiations for
acceding Jammu and Kashmir to India in exchange for receiving
military aid. The agreement which ceded Jammu and Kashmir to India
was signed by the Maharaja and Lord
Mountbatten of Burma.[28]

The resulting war over Kashmir, the First Kashmir
War, lasted until 1948, when India moved the issue to the UN Security Council. The UN previously had
passed resolutions setting up for the monitoring of the conflict in
Kashmir. The committee it set up was called the United Nations
Committee for India and Pakistan. Following the set up of the UNCIP
the UN Security Council passed Resolution
47 on April 21, 1948. The resolution imposed that an immediate
cease-fire take place and said that Pakistan should withdraw all
presence and had no say in Jammu and Kashmir politics. It stated
that India should retain a minimum military presence and stated
"that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will
be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through
the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted
under the auspices of the United Nations". The cease fire took
place December 31, 1948.

At that time, the Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to
hold the plebiscite but Pakistan did not withdraw its troops from
Kashmir thus violating the condition for holding the
plebiscite.[6] Over
the next several years, the UN Security
Council passed four new resolutions, revising the terms of Resolution
47 to include a synchronous withdrawal of both Indian and
Pakistani troops from the region, per the recommendations of General Andrew
McNaughton. To this end, UN arbitrators put forward 11
different proposals for the demilitarization of the region - every
one of which was accepted by Pakistan, but rejected by the Indian
government.[7] The
resolutions were passed by United Nations Security
Council under Chapter VI of the
United Nations Charter.[8]
Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered
non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the
resolutions passed under Chapter VII.[9]

Sino-Indian
War

In 1962, troops from the People's Republic of China
and India clashed in territory claimed by both. China won a swift
victory in the war, resulting in the Chinese administration of the
region called Aksai
Chin, which continues to date. In addition to these lands,
another smaller area, the Trans-Karakoram,
was demarcated as the line of control between China and Pakistan,
although parts on the Chinese side are claimed by India to be parts
of Kashmir. The line that separates India from China in this region
is known as the Line of Actual Control. [29]

1965 and 1971
wars

In 1965 and 1971, heavy fighting again broke out between India
and Pakistan. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
resulted in the defeat of Pakistan and Pakistan Military's
surrender in East
Pakistan (Bangladesh). The Simla Agreement was signed in 1972
between India and Pakistan. By this treaty, both countries agreed
to settle all issues by peaceful means and mutual discussions in
the framework of the UN Charter.

Militancy

In 1989, a widespread armed insurgency started in Kashmir, Since
after 1987 disputed rigged Sate elections resulted in some of the
'states legislative assembly' 'formed militant wings' later on
after the election forming and creating the catalyst for the
insurgency which continues to this day furthermore 'in part' fueled
by Afghan Mujahadeen in 1989Timeline of the conflict.
India contends that this was largely started by the large number of
Afghan mujahideen who
entered the Kashmir valley following the end of the Soviet-Afghan War, though Pakistan and
Kashmiri nationalists argue that Afghan mujahideen did not leave
Afghanistan in large numbers until 1992, three years after the
insurgency began.[10]Yasin Malik, a leader
of one faction of the Jammu Kashmir
Liberation Front,along with Ashfaq Majid Wani and Farooq Ahmad
Dar alias Bitta Karatay, was one of the Kashmiris to organize
militancy in Kashmir. However since 1995, Malik has renounced the
use of violence and calls for strictly peaceful methods to resolve
the dispute. He developed differences with one of the senior leader
Farooq Papa for shunning the demand for independent Kashmir and
trying to cut a deal with Indian Prime Minister resulting in spilt
in which Bitta Karatay, Salim Nanhaji and other senior comrades
joined Farooq Papa.[11][12]Pakistan claims these
insurgents are Jammu and Kashmir citizens, and they are rising up
against the Indian Army in an independence movement. It also says
the Indian Army is committing serious human rights violations to
the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. It denies that it is giving
armed help to the insurgents.

India claims these insurgents are Islamic terrorist groups from
Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan, fighting to make
Jammu and Kashmir part of Pakistan.[13] It
believes Pakistan is giving armed help to the terrorists, and
training them in Pakistan. It also says the terrorists have been
killing many citizens in Kashmir, and committing human rights
violations, while denying that its own armed forces are responsible
for the human rights abuses. On a visit to Pakistan in 2006 current
Chief Minister of Kashmir Omar Abdullah remarked that foreign
militants, who had nothing to do with Kashmir, were engaged in
reckless killings and mayhem in the name of religion.[14] Also
US Intelligence agencies believe that Al-Qaeda and Taliban are helping organize a terror campaign
in Kashmir to foment conflict between India and Pakistan.[15][16] A
2001 report 'Pakistan's Role in the Kashmir Insurgency' of US Think tankRAND corporation noted that 'More
intrinsically, the nature of the Kashmir conflict has been
transformed from what was originally a secular, locally- based
struggle (conducted via the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front - JKLF)
to one that is now largely carried out by foreign militants and
rationalised in pan-Islamic religious terms.'[17] In
July 2006 Al-Qaeda stated
that it had established a wing in Kashmir.[18]
Indian government has said militancy is now on the decline[3].
.

The Pakistani government calls these insurgents, "Kashmiri
freedom fighters", and claims that it gives only moral and
diplomatic support to these insurgents, though India[19]
believes they are Pakistan-supported terrorists from Pakistan
Administered Kashmir. In October 2008 President Asif Ali
Zardari of Pakistan
called the Kashmir separatists Terrorists in an interview with The
Wall Street Journal,[20] these
comments by Zardari sparked outrage amongs many Kashmiris, some of
whom defied a curfew by the Indian army to burn his effigy.[21]

The peacful protest movement has been a 'purely indigenous,
purely Kashmiri'(Quoted by Washington post from Mirwaiz Farooq a
Kashmiri party leader) 'Ghandi style' (stated by Wall Street
Journal) peaceful protest movement in Indian Administered Kashmir
since 1989. The movement was created for the same reason as the
insurgency ;the disputed rigged elections in 1987 ,Kashmir
dispute and grievances with the Indian government specifically the
Indian Military that has committed human rights violations .This
reinforced by the United Nations that has said India has committed
Human rights violations .[2][3][22].

Conflict in
Kargil

In mid-1999 insurgents and Pakistani soldiers from Pakistani Kashmir infiltrated into Jammu and
Kashmir. During the winter season, Indian forces regularly move
down to lower altitudes as severe climatic conditions makes it
almost impossible for them to guard the high peaks near the Line of
Control. The insurgents took advantage of this and occupied
vacant mountain peaks of the Kargil range overlooking the highway
in Indian Kashmir, connecting Srinagar and Leh. By blocking the highway, they wanted to cut
off the only link between the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. This resulted in a high-scale conflict
between the Indian
Army and the Pakistan Army.

At the same time, fears of the Kargil War turning into a nuclear war
provoked the then-US President Bill Clinton to pressure Pakistan to
retreat. Faced with mounting losses of personnel and posts,
Pakistan Army withdrew the remaining troops from the area ending
the conflict. India reclaimed control of the peaks which they now
patrol and monitor all year long.

Reasons behind the
dispute

The Kashmir Conflict arises from the Partition of
India in 1947 into modern India and Pakistan. Both the countries have made claims
to Kashmir, based on historical developments and religious
affiliations of the Kashmiri people. The state of Jammu and
Kashmir, which lies strategically in the Northwest of the subcontinent,
bordering China and the former
Soviet Union, was
a princely
state ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh, under the paramountcy of British India. In
geographical and legal terms, the Maharaja could have joined either
of the two new Dominions. Although urged by the Viceroy, Lord
Mountbatten of Burma, to determine the future of his state
before the transfer of power took place, Hari Singh demurred. In October 1947,
incursions and counter-incursions by Pakistan and India have taken
place leading to a war, as a result of which the state of Jammu and
Kashmir remains divided between the two countries.

Numerous violations of the Line of Control have occurred,
including the infamous incursions by insurgents and Pakistani armed
forces at Kargil leading to the Kargil war. There are
also sporadic clashes on the Siachen Glacier, where the Line of
Control is not demarcated and both countries maintain forces at
altitudes rising to 20,000 ft (6,100 m).

Indian
view

Indian viewpoint is succinctly summarized by Ministry of
External affairs, Government of India[23][24]
—

India holds that the Instrument of
Accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India, signed by
the Maharaja Hari
Singh (erstwhile ruler of the State) on 26 October, 1947, was
completely valid in terms of the Government of India Act (1935),
Indian Independence Act (1947) and international law and was total
and irrevocable.[24]

The Constituent
assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had unanimously ratified the
Maharaja's Instrument of Accession to India and had adopted a
constitution for the state that called for a perpetual merger of
the state with the Union of India. India claims that this
body was a representative one, and that its views were those of the
Kashmiri people at the time.

Additional Indian viewpoint regarding the broader debate over
the Kashmir conflict include:

India believes that the insurgency and terrorism in Kashmir is
deliberately being fueled by Pakistan to create instability in the
region.[31] The
Government of India has repeatedly asked the international
community to declare Pakistan as a sponsor of terrorism.[32][33][34][35]

Pakistan is trying to raise anti-India sentiment among the
people of Kashmir by spreading false propaganda against India.[36]
According to the state government of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistani
radio and television channels deliberately spread "hate and venom"
against India to alter Kashmiri opinion.[37]

In a diverse country like India,
disaffection and discontent are not uncommon. Indian democracy has the necessary
resilience to accommodate genuine grievances within the framework
of our sovereignty, unity and integrity. Government of India has
expressed its willingness to accommodate the legitimate political
demands of the people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.[23]

India points out at various reports by human rights
organizations condemning Pakistan for the lack civic liberties in
Pakistan-administered Kashmir.[36][41]
According to India, most regions of Pakistani Kashmir, especially
Northern Areas, continue to suffer from lack of political
recognition, economic development and basic fundamental rights.[42]

All differences between India and Pakistan including Kashmir
need to be settled through bilateral negotiations as agreed to by
the two countries when they signed the Simla Agreement on July 2, 1972.[43]

Pakistani
view

Map of Kashmir as drawn by the Government of Pakistan.

Pakistan's claims to the disputed region are based on the
rejection of Indian claims to Kashmir, namely the Instrument of Accession.
Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a popular leader, and
was regarded as a tyrant by most Kashmiris, Pakistan also maintains
that the Maharaja used brute force to suppress the population.[44]
Pakistan also accuses India of hypocrisy, as it refused to
recognize the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan and Hyderabad's
independence, on the grounds that those two states had Hindu
majorities (in fact, India occupied and forcibly integrated those
two territories).[45]
Furthermore, as he had fled Kashmir due to Pakistani invasion,
Pakistan asserts that the Maharaja held no authority in determining
Kashmir's future. Additionally, Pakistan argues that even if the
Maharaja had any authority in determining the plight of Kashmir, he
signed the Instrument of Accession under duress, thus invalidating
the legitimacy of his actions.

Pakistan also claims that Indian forces were in Kashmir before
the Instrument of Accession was signed with India, and that
therefore Indian troops were in Kashmir in violation of the Standstill Agreement, which was designed to
maintain the status quo in Kashmir (although India was not
signatory to the Agreement, signed between Pakistan and the Hindu
ruler of Jammu and Kashmir).[46][47]

From 1990 to 1999 some organizations report that Indian
Armed Forces, its paramilitary groups, and counter-insurgent
militias have been responsible for the deaths 4,501 of Kashmiri
civilians. Also from 1990 to 1999, there are records of 4,242 women
between the ages of 7-70 that have been raped.[48][49].
Similar allegations were also made by some human rights
organizations.[50]

In short, Pakistan holds that:

The popular Kashmiri insurgency demonstrates that the Kashmiri
people no longer wish to remain within India. Pakistan suggests
that this means that either Kashmir wants to be with Pakistan or
independent.[51]

According to the two-nation theory
which is one of the theories that is cited for the partition that
created India and Pakistan, Kashmir should have been with Pakistan,
because it has a Muslim majority.

India has shown disregard to the resolutions of the UN Security
Council, and the United Nations Commission in India and Pakistan by
failing to hold a plebiscite to determine the future allegiance of
the entire state.[52]

The Kashmiri people have now been forced by the circumstances
to rise against the alleged repression of the Indian
army and uphold their right of self-determination through
militancy. Pakistan claims to give the Kashmiri insurgents moral,
ethical and military support (see 1999 Kargil
Conflict).

Recent protests in Indian administered Kashmir show a large
number of people showing increased anger over Indian rule with
massive rallies taking place to oppose Indian control of the
state.[53]

Pakistan also points to the violence that accompanies elections
in Indian Kashmir[54] and
the anti Indian sentiments expressed by some people in the
state.[55]

Pakistan has noted the wide spread use of extrajudicial
killings in Indian-administered Kashmir carried out by
Indian security forces while claiming they were caught up in
encounters with militants. These fake encounters are common place
in Indian-administered Kashmir and the perpetrators are spared
criminal prosecution. These fake encounters go largely
uninvestigated by the authorities.[56][57]

Pakistan points towards reports from the United Nations which
condemn India for its human rights violations against kashmiri
people.[22]

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari stated in October
2008 that Kashmiri 'freedom fighters' were terrorists. However his
remarks met with widespread condemnation across Pakistan and
Kashmir, including prominent politicians.[58]

The Chenab formula - This was proposed in 1960's, in which
Kashmir valley and other Muslim dominated areas north of Chenab river will go to Pakistan, and Jammu
and other Hindu dominated region will go to India.[59]

Cross-border troubles

The border and the Line of Control separating Indian and
Pakistani Kashmir passes through some exceptionally difficult
terrain. The world's highest battleground, the Siachen Glacier
is a part of this difficult-to-man boundary. Even with 200,000
military personnel, [30] India
maintains that it is infeasible to place enough men to guard all
sections of the border throughout the various seasons of the year.
Pakistan has indirectly acquiesced its role in failing to prevent
"cross border terrorism" when it agreed to curb such activities [31] after intense
pressure from the Bush administration in mid 2002.

Water
dispute

Another reason behind the dispute over Kashmir is water. Kashmir
is the origin point for many rivers and tributaries of the Indus River basin. They
include Jhelum and
Chenab
which primarily flow into Pakistan while other branches - the Ravi, Beas and the Sutlej irrigate northern India.
Pakistan has been apprehensive that in a dire need, India (under
whose portion of Kashmir lies the origins and passage of the said
rivers) would use its strategic advantage and withhold the flow and
thus choke the agrarian economy of Pakistan. The Boundary Award of
1947 meant that the headwaters of Pakistani irrigation systems were
in Indian Territory. The Indus Waters Treaty signed in 1960
resolved most of these disputes over the sharing of water, calling
for mutual cooperation in this regard. But this treaty faced issues
raised by Pakistan over the construction of dams on the Indian side
which limit water to the Pakistani side.

Human rights
abuse

Indian administered
Kashmir

In Jammu
and Kashmir, India, the
violent Islamic insurgency has specifically targeted the Hindu Kashmiri Pandit
minority, violated their human rights and 400,000 have either been
murdered or displaced.[60]
US Congressman Frank
Pallone stated "The conflict in Kashmir cannot be separated
from the global war against terrorism, over the past fifteen years
militant forces, including elements of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, have used violence against the
Kashmiri Pandits in an effort to institute Islamic rule in this
region".[60]
This violence been condemned and labeled as ethnic
cleansing in a 2006 resolution passed by the United States Congress.[61] Also
in 2009 Oregon Legislative Assembly
passed a resolution to recognize September 14, 2007, as Martyrs Day
to acknowledge ethnic cleansing and campaigns of terror inflicted
on non-Muslim minorities of Jammu and Kashmir by militants
seeking to establish an Islamic state.[62].On
the other hand the Cia reported about 300,000 Hindus in Indian
Administered Kashmir valley are internally displaced due to
militancy [63] and
the UNHCR reported that there are roughly 1.5 million Refugees from
Indian-administered Kashmir in Pakistan administered kashmir and
Pakistan [64].Furthermore
a leader of a party from Jammu and Kashmir accuses Indian
'Govt changing Kashmir demography' .[65]

Claims of human rights abuses have been made against the Indian
Armed Forces and the armed militants operating in Jammu and
Kashmir.[32] A 2005 study
conducted by Médecins Sans Frontières found
that Kashmiri women are among the worst sufferers of sexual
violence in the world, with 11.6% of respondents reporting that
they had been victims of sexual abuse.[66] Some
surveys have found that in the Kashmir region itself (where the
bulk of separatist and Indian military activity is concentrated),
popular perception holds that the Indian Armed Forces are more to
blame for human rights violations than the separatist groups.
According to the MORI survey of 2002, in Kashmir only 2% of
respondents believed that the militant groups were guilty of
widespread human rights abuses, while 64% believed that Indian
troops were guilty of the same. This trend was reversed however in
other parts of the state.[67] Off
late Amnesty International has called
on India to "unequivocally condemn enforced disappearances" and to
ensure that impartial investigation is conducted on reality of mass
graves in its controlled Kashmir region. As the Indian state police
confirms as many as 331 deaths while in custody and 111 enforced
disappearances since 1989 [33]. [68].[69] .[70]

several international agencies and the UN have reported human rights violations in
Indian-administered Kashmir. In a recent
press release the OHCHR spokesmen stated "The Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights is concerned about the recent violent
protests in Indian-administered Kashmir that have reportedly led to
civilian casualties as well as restrictions to the right to freedom
of assembly and expression."[71].A
1996 Human
Rights Watch report accuses the Indian military and
Indian-government backed paramilitaries of "committ[ing] serious
and widespread human rights violations in Kashmir."[72] One
such alleged massacre occurred on January 6, 1993 in the town of Sopore. TIME Magazine described the incident
as such: "In retaliation for the killing of one soldier,
paramilitary forces rampaged through Sopore's market setting
buildings ablaze and shooting bystanders. The Indian government
pronounced the event 'unfortunate' and claimed that an ammunition
dump had been hit by gunfire, setting off fires that killed most of
the victims."[73] In
addition to this, there have been claims of disappearances by the
police or the army in Kashmir by several human rights
organizations.[74][75].Jammu
and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 [76][77]:
Human rights organizations have also asked Indian government to
repeal[78] the
Public Safety Act, since "a detainee may be held in administrative
detention for a maximum of two years without a court order."[79].

A soldier guards the roadside checkpoint outside Srinagar
International Airport in January 2009.

Many human rights organizations such as Amnesty
International and the Human Rights Watch (HRW) have
condemned human rights abuses in Kashmir by Indians such as
"extra-judicial executions", "disappearances", and torture;[80] the
"Armed Forces Special Powers Act", which "provides impunity for
human rights abuses and fuels cycles of violence. The Armed Forces
Special Powers Act (AFSPA) grants the military wide powers of
arrest, the right to shoot to kill, and to occupy or destroy
property in counterinsurgency operations. Indian officials claim
that troops need such powers because the army is only deployed when
national security is at serious risk from armed combatants. Such
circumstances, they say, call for extraordinary measures." Human
rights organizations have also asked Indian government to
repeal[81] the
Public Safety Act, since "a detainee may be held in administrative
detention for a maximum of two years without a court order."[82].A
2008 report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
determined that Indian
Administered Kashmir, was only 'partly Free' [83].

Pakistan administered
Kashmir

Pakistan as an Islamic Republic imposes multiple restrictions on
peoples religious freedom in areas of Kashmir under its
control.[89]Shias and Ismailis
are subject to discrimination.[89]
The constitution of Azad Kashmir specifically prohibits activities
that may be prejudicial to the states accession to Pakistan and as
such regularly suppresses demonstrations against the
government.[89]
A number of Islamist militant groups operate in this area including
Al-Qaeda with tacit
permission from Pakistan's intelligence.[89]
As in Indian administered Kashmir there have been allegations of
Human rights abuse in Pakistan
administered Kashmir. The Balawaristan National Front
has stated its goal of seeking independence from Pakistan. Abdul
Hamid Khan Chairman of Balawaristan National Front
states that 'The Pakistani administration has also been involved in
efforts to alter the demographic profile of Pakistan-occupied
Gilgit Baltistan, reducing the indigenous people to a minority.'
The Gilgit-Baltistan area is administered directly by Islamabad.
The population here, primarily Shia Muslims, was brought under one
federally administered territory administered by Pakistan on
November 16, 1947, in the name of Islam.'[90] Other
groups like Gilgit-Baltistan United
Movement are demanding full autonomy for the areas of Gilgit and Baltistan. On January 8, 2005 11 people were
killed following an armed attack on a Shia leader.[91]
According to B.Raman of India, the main reasons for the unrest were
military induced changes in demographic composition by encouraging
the migration of Sunnis from the other provinces. As a result, the
Shias and the Ismailis, who constituted about 85 per cent of the
population in 1948, today constitute only about 53 per cent of the
population in 2005.[92] A
2-day conference on Gilgit Baltistan was held on April 8-9, 2008 at
the European Parliament in Brussels under the auspices of International
Kashmir Alliance. Here several members of the European
Parliament (MEPs) expressed concern over the human rights
violation in Gilgit Baltistan and urged the government of Pakistan
to establish democratic institutions and rule of law in this area
of northern Kashmir. Abdul Hamid Khan, Chairman Balawaristan
National Front speaking at the same conference said "no
democratically elected representative (from Gilgit Baltistan) was
included when Karachi Agreement was signed between
Pakistan and Muslim Conference leaders in 1949." [93]
According to Shaukat Ali chairman of International Kashmir alliance
"On one hand Pakistan claims to be the champion of the right of
self-determination of the Kashmiri people, but she has denied the
same rights under its controlled parts of Kashmir and Gilgit
Baltistan"[93]
Gilgit Baltistan region has been described a 'simmering cauldron of
discontent.[94]
Continued deprivation of human rights has driven people to
desperation.[94]
Many people think that they are under the colonial rule of
Pakistani government and have boycotted independence day
celebrations. Since independence Pakistan government has made no
attempts to provide basic human rights in this region and no
democratic setup exists.[94]

A report 'Kashmir: Present Situation and Future Prospects' which
was submitted to European Parliament by Emma
Nicholson, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne was severely
critical of lack of human rights, justice, democracy & Kashmiri
representation in Pakistan National Assembly in Pakistan
administered Kashmir.[95]International Crisis Group
has stated “Almost six decades after Pakistan’s independence, the
constitutional status of the Federally Administered Northern Areas
(Gilgit and Baltistan), once part of the former princely state of
Jammu and Kashmir and now under Pakistani control, remains
undetermined, with political autonomy a distant dream. The region’s
inhabitants are embittered by Islamabad’s unwillingness to devolve
powers in real terms to its elected representatives, and a
nationalist movement, which seeks independence, is gaining ground.
The rise of sectarian extremism is an alarming consequence of this
denial of basic political rights”. [94].However
in 2009 Pakistan government implemented autonomy package for the
people from Gilgit-baltistan .The 'first step' being an election to
elect their own assembly and there have been criticism about this
move by Pakistan .Furthermore according to Reuters U.S majority of
the people from the region would rather join Pakistan as a province
than integrated into Kashmir [96]

Map
issues

As with other disputed territories, each government issues maps
depicting their claims in Kashmir as part of their territory,
regardless of actual control. It is illegal in India to exclude all
or part of Kashmir in a map. It is also illegal in Pakistan not to include the
state of Jammu and Kashmir as disputed
territory, as permitted by the United Nations. Non-participants often
use the Line of
Control and the Line of Actual Control as the
depicted boundaries, as is done in the CIA World Factbook, and the region is often
marked out in hashmarks, although the Indian government strictly
opposes such practices. When Microsoft released a map in Windows 95 and
MapPoint 2002, a controversy was raised because it did not show all
of Kashmir as part of India as per Indian claim. However, all the
neutral and Pakistani companies claim to follow UN's map and over 90% of all
maps containing the territory of Kashmir show it as disputed
territory.[34]

Sources from:

UN: The
boundaries and names shown and the designations used on the map do
not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.
Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control of Jammu and
Kashmir agreed upon by the Republic of India
and the Government of Pakistan since
1972. Both the parties have not yet agreed upon the final status of
the region and nothing significant has been implemented since the
peace process began in 2004.

Islamabad: The Government of Pakistan maintains
un-provisionally and unconditionally stating that the informal
"Accession of Jammu and Kashmir" to Pakistan or even to the Republic of India remains to be decided by
UN plebiscite. It accepts UN's map of the territory. Also
the designations and the presentation of the Kashmir's regional map based on United
Nations Organization practice, do not imply the expression of
any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Commonwealth Secretariat or
the publishers concerning the legal status of any country,
territory or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries. There is no intention to define the status Jammu and/or
Kashmir, which has not yet been agreed upon by the parties.

Recent
developments

India continues to assert their sovereignty or rights over the
entire region of Kashmir, while Pakistan maintains that it is a
disputed territory. Pakistan argues that the status quo cannot be
considered as a solution. Pakistan insists on a UN sponsored
plebiscite . Unofficially, the Pakistani leadership has indicated
that they would be willing to accept alternatives such as a
demilitarized Kashmir, if sovereignty of Azad Kashmir was to be
extended over the Kashmir valley, or the ‘Chenab’ formula, by which
India would retain parts of Kashmir on its side of the Chenab
river, and Pakistan the other side - effectively re-partioning
Kashmir on communal lines. The problem however is that the
Population of Pakistan Administered portion of Kashmir is both
ethnically and linguistically and culturally different from that in
Kashmir Valley India. The Azad Kashmir population being on the most
part ethnic Punjabis. Therefore a Partition on the Chenab formula
is opposed by most Kashmiri politicians from all spectrums, though
some, such as Sajjad Lone, have in recent months suggested that
non-Muslim part of Jammu and Kashmir be separated from Kashmir and
handed to India. Some political analysts say that the Pakistan
terrorist state policy shift and mellowing down of its aggressive
stance may have to do with its total failure in the Kargil War and the
subsequent 9/11 attacks that put pressure on
Pakistan to alter its terrorist position.[97]
Further many neutral parties to the dispute have noted that UN
resolution on Kashmir is no longer relevant.[98] Even
the European
Union has viewed that the plebiscite is not in Kashmiris'
interest.[99] The
report also notes, that the UN-laid down conditions for such a
plebiscite have not been, and can no longer be, met by
Pakistan.[100] Even
the Hurriyat Conference observed in 2003, that
"Plebiscite no longer an option"[101]
Besides the popular factions that support either parties, there is
a third faction which supports independence and withdrawal of both
India and Pakistan. These have been the respective stands of the
parties for long, and there have been no significant change over
the years. As a result, all efforts to solve the conflict have been
futile so far.

The Freedom in
the World 2006 report categorized the Indian-administered Kashmir as
"partly free", and Pakistan-administered
Kashmir as well as the country of Pakistan "not free". [35] India claims
that contrary to popular belief, a large proportion of the Jammu
and Kashmir populace wish to remain with India. A MORI survey found
that within the Kashmir Valley, 9% of respondents said they felt
they would be better off as Indian citizens, with 78% saying that
they did not know, and the remaining 13% favouring Pakistani
citizenship.[102]
According to a 2007 poll conducted by the Centre for the Study of
Developing Societies in New Delhi, 87% of respondents in the
Kashmir Valley prefer independence over union with India or
Pakistan.[103]

The 2005 Kashmir earthquake, which
killed over 80,000 people, led to India and Pakistan finalizing
negotiations for the opening of a road for disaster relief through
Kashmir.

After intensive diplomatic efforts by other countries, India and
Pakistan began to withdraw troops from the international border
June 10, 2002, and negotiations began again. Effective November 26,
2003, India and Pakistan have agreed to maintain a ceasefire along
the undisputed International Border, the disputed Line of
Control, and the Siachen glacier. This is the first such
"total ceasefire" declared by both nuclear powers in nearly 15
years. In February 2004, Pakistan further increased pressure on
Pakistanis fighting in Indian-administered Kashmir to adhere to the
ceasefire. The nuclear-armed neighbours also launched several other
mutual confidence building measures. Restarting the bus service
between the Indian- and Pakistani- administered Kashmir has helped
defuse the tensions between the countries. Both India and Pakistan
have also decided to cooperate on economic fronts.

On Dec. 5, 2006, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told an
Indian TV channel that Pakistan would give up its claim on Kashmir
if India accepted some of his peace proposals, including a phased
withdrawal of troops, self-governance for locals, no changes in the
borders of Kashmir, and a joint supervision mechanism involving
India, Pakistan and Kashmir, the BBC reported[104].
Musharraf also stated that he was ready to give up the United
Nations' resolutions regarding Kashmir [105].

2008
Militant attacks

In the week of March 10 2008, 17 people were wounded when a
blast hit the region's only highway overpass located near the Civil
Secretariat– Indian-controlled Kashmir's seat of government– and
the region's high court. A gun battle between security forces and
militants fighting against Indian rule left five people dead and two others
injured March 23 2008. The battle began when security forces raided
a house on the outskirts of the capital city of Srinagar. The Indian Army has been carrying out
cordon-and-search operations against militants in
Indian-administered Kashmir since the current armed violence broke
out here in 1989. While the authorities here say 43,000 persons
have been killed in the violence, various rights groups and
non-governmental organizations have put the figure at twice that
number[106].

According to Govt. of India Home Ministry, 2008 marks the lowest
civilian casualties in 20 years with 89 deaths, compared to highest
of 1,413 in 1996.[107] 85
security personnel died in 2008 compared to 613 in 2001, while 102
militants killed. Human right situation improved with only 1
custodial death and no custodial disappearance.

2008
Kashmir protests

Massive demonstrations occurred after plans by the
Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir state government to transfer 100 acres
(0.40 km2) of land to a trust which runs the
Hindu Amarnath
shrine in the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley.[108].
This land was to be used to build a shelter to house Hindu pilgrims
temporarily during their annual pilgrimage to the Amarnath
temple.

Indian security forces and the Indian army responded quickly to
keep order. More than 40 unarmed protesters were killed[109] and
at least 300 were detained.[110] The
largest protests saw more than a half million people waving
Pakistani flags and crying for freedom at a single rally according
to Time magazine.[111]
Pro-Independent Kashmir Leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq warned that the
peaceful uprising could lead to violent upsurge if India's
heavy-handed crackdown on protests were not restrained.[112] The
United Nations expressed concern on India's response to peaceful
protests and urged to investigate and bring to justice Indian
security personnel who had taken part in the crackdown.[22]

Separatists and workers of a political party were believed to be
behind stone
pelting incidents which led to retaliatory fire by the police.[113][114]
Autorickshaw laden with stones meant for distribution was seized by
the police in March 2009.

2008
Kashmir elections

State Elections were held in Indian held Kashmir in seven phases
starting November 17 and finishing on December 24, 2008. In spite
of calls by separatists for a boycott an unusually high turnout of
almost 50% was recorded[115].
The National Conference party which was founded by Sheikh Abdullah
and regarded as pro India
emerged with maximum seats and will form government in coalition
with Indian National Congress.[116]

2008 marks the lowest civilian casualties in 20 years with 89
deaths, compared to highest of 1,413 in 1996.[117] 85
security personnel died in 2008 compared to 613 in 2001, while 102
militants were killed. Many analysts say Pakistan's preoccupation
with jihadis within its own borders explains the relative calm.[118]

2008 marked the greatest number of anti India protests since
1980 due to the Amarnath land transfer
controversy with several hundred thousand protesters spilling
out onto the streets of Indian-administered Kashmir demanding
freedom from India the protests were suppressed by the Indian army
with attacks on protesters leading to the deaths of 40 unarmed
civilians.[119]
However the elections which were held subsequently led to almost
half of the Kashmiris ignoring the boycott call by separatists and
voting Pro India party National
Conference into power.Separatists insist that this was so because
people were looking towards their well being and voting for
whatever could get them 'bread and clothing',and the turnout did
not necessarily reflect the feelings of the Kashmiris towards
India.On 30 December Congress and the National Conference agreed to
form a coalition government, with Omar Abdullah as Chief Minister.[120] On
January 5, 2009 Omar
Abdullah was sworn in as 11th Chief Minister of Jammu and
Kashmir.[121] In
March 2009 Omar
Abdullah stated that only 800 militants were active in the
state and out of these only 30% were Kashmiris.[122]

Obama
on Kashmir Conflict

In an interview with Joe Klien of Time magazine in October 2008
Barack Obama
expressed his intention to try to work with India and Pakistan to
resolve this crisis in a serious way.[123] He
said he had talked to Bill Clinton about it ( being a mediator).
In an editorial in The Washington Times, Selig S
Harrison[124],
director of Asia Programme at the Center for International
Policy and a senior scholar of the Woodrow Wilson International
called it Obama's first foreign policy mistake.[125]The Australian in
an editorial called Obama's Idea to appoint a presidential
negotiator "a very stupid and dangerous move indeed"[126] In
an editorial in Forbes, Reihan Salam
associate editor for The Atlantic noted "The smartest thing
President Obama could do on Kashmir is probably nothing. We have to
hope that India and Pakistan can work out their differences on
Kashmir on their own".[127]The Boston
Globe in an editorial called the idea of appointing Bill
Clinton as an envoy to Kashmir "a mistake".[128]
India has long regarded Kashmir as an Integral part of India and
resisted outside intervention considering Kashmir to be an integral
part of India and the conflict a bilateral matter between India and
Pakistan. President Obama appointed Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to
Pakistan and Afghanistan.[129]
President Asif
Ali Zardari had hoped that Holbrooke would help mediate to
resolve Kashmir issue.[130]
Subsequently Kashmir was removed from the mandate of Richard
Holbrooke .[131]
“Eliminating … Kashmir from his job description … is seen as a
significant diplomatic concession to India that reflects
increasingly warm ties between the country and the United States,”
The
Washington Post noted in a report.[132]
Brajesh Mishra, India's former national security adviser, was
quoted in the same report as saying in reference to the territory's
Indian-administered sector "No matter what government is in place,
India is not going to relinquish control of Jammu and Kashmir,"
"That is written in stone and cannot be changed."[133]
According to The Financial
Times India has warned US President Barack Obama that he risks
“barking up the wrong tree” if he seeks to broker a settlement
between Pakistan and India over the disputed territory of
Kashmir.[134]

In July 2009 US Assistant Secretary of State Robert O.
Blake, Jr. stated categorically that United States had no plans
of appointing any special envoy to settle the long standing dispute
of Kashmir between India and Pakistan calling it an issue which
needs to be sorted out bilaterally by the two neighboring
states.[135]
According to Dawn in Pakistan this will be
interpreted as an endorsement of India’s position on Kashmir that
no outside power has any role in this dispute.[136]

External
links

The Future of Kashmir,
Matthew A. Rosenstein et al., ACDIS Swords and Ploughshares 16:1
(winter 2007-8), Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and
International Security (ACDIS) at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.